Famous and well liked Republican Colin Powell has endorsed liberal Democrat Barack Obama, or do I repeat myself? My “lefty” father was excited and quick to tell me the news yesterday. In return I retorted, “So now that Colin Powell is on your side he can be forgiven for pounding the Iraq war drum to the world five years ago?” Or perhaps I was off base. Maybe this endorsement tells us more about Obama than it does Powell.

There should be no question now about the nature of Obama’s foreign policy. He’s an interventionist. He always was an interventionist, but for some reason he was labeled the “peace” candidate. The only disagreement between McCain and Obama on foreign policy is which far off land gets a visit by the American military first.

In the endorsement Powell called Obama “a transformational” figure. It seems he forgot to put the word “fake” in there. Then again, the truth was never something Colin Powell worried too much about. If he wanted to endorse a truly “transformational” candidate he would have endorsed Ron Paul in the primaries and Bob Barr today. Obama is no more transformational than… well.. John McCain.

Suddenly it becomes a bit more difficult for the Obama camp to attack McCain with their “Bush twin” argument. It wouldn’t shock me to hear McCain use the Powell endorsement to help refute that argument. As in, “My friends, here is a little straight talk for ya, Obama likes to compare me to Bush, but I’m not the one who received the endorsement from Bush’s former Secretary of State! No, my friends, I’m a real maverick”. This tactic by McCain backfires easily if anyone looks at the list of his own endorsements. The McCain camp may not care though. After all McCain actually called himself a “federalist” during the last debate. I waited for the laugh track that never came.

At this point it looks like McCain may be an afterthought come January 20th, 2009. Powell’s endorsement may or may not have something to do with that future. I’ll leave talk of the effect of the endorsement to the pundits.

I view it as just further confirmation that we live in a country ruled by one party with two names.

Responses

So Powell doesn’t really care about the truth. And Powell was in cahoots with those who wanted to invade Iraq.
Not that it matters, but, Powell left the Bush administration over the issue of Iraq, among other things.
He was given information, which information he was assured was correct, that he presented to the UN.
So, it is now his fault for being deceived? And it is his fault for not behaving like some immature libertarian(a redundant phrase as most all libertarians or so-called free thinkers are immature) and jumping ship at the first glance? No, Powell has principles and virtues and a maturity that says that, well, things happen–voting no on everything is no sign of maturity.
And that’s why the question of Powell not endorsing Barr or Paul is quite absurd.

No, I’m not surprised Powell didn’t endorse Barr or Baldwin, I think both of them have Sarah Palin beat in presidential credentials, but not by much.

I’m surprised that people aren’t jumping for JOY that Colin endorsed Obama.
It is showing the fracturing of the GOP. And the GOP needs to be shattered, if only so that it can be rebuilt into what it once was. A fiscally conservative, small government-minded organization.

As a Ron Paul supporter, I will proudly say that I am voting for Obama. And unline the 2000 election, any votes for a 3rd party candidate are a vote for the Democratic candidate. Barr and Baldwin are to be commended for their desire to run for the Oval Office, but let’s be realistic, neither of them will get a single electoral vote.

The whole notion of “experience” as an underlying prerequisite for the office of President is laughable. You’re falling for a psychological trick designed to favor incumbents and creatures of the establishment.

The idea that “experience” is important flies in the face of the concept of the Citizen-Statesman that was proffered by the Framers.